NEW GEORGIAN VECTOR
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 28 2014
28 February 2014 - 2:44pm
Victoria Panfilova "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" exclusively for Vestnik
Kavkaza
Yesterday, the president of Georgia began his two-day visit to
Armenia. The visit was to be expected, as Georgi Margvelashvili has
already visited other neighboring countries. In Yerevan, the Georgian
delegation was received at the highest level. During the two days,
the messengers from Georgia met with the Armenian President, the
Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister, members of the government,
and finally, with the Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II.
With all the warmth and hospitality that guests are surrounded with in
the Caucasus, the Georgian delegation always have difficult moments in
neighboring countries. Namely, when it comes to territorial integrity.
Baku wants the guests to consider Nagorno-Karabakh part of their
country that has been just temporarily torn away. Here it is much
easier to respond for the representatives of Georgia, who are
experiencing the same problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
than in Yerevan, where they hear the usual question from some media
representatives about their attitude to Nagorno-Karabakh. Declaring
that it is part of Azerbaijan is equivalent to insulting the host
country. To support the Armenian stance means to condemn Georgia not
only to problems with Azerbaijan, but dig themselves a deeper hole
for the negotiations in Geneva on Abkhazia and South Ossetia issues.
Naturally, supporters of independence of the former Georgian autonomies
will put the question bluntly in the negotiations: Dear Georgians,
recently in Yerevan you talked about Karabakh as an independent state,
and on what basis are you denying independence to partially-recognized
Abkhazia and South Ossetia?
Therefore, Georgian delegations visiting neighbors have to be extremely
careful and scrupulous in their choice of definitions. The previous
authorities, by the way, were not exactly subtle. For example, one of
Mikheil Saakashvili's visits to Azerbaijan turned into a real scandal
with Armenia. Going into a rage, the Georgian leader said that Tbilisi
and Baku should join forces and stifle the separatist sentiments in
the region, be it Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia or South Ossetia. And it
was said in a context that implied not only diplomatic efforts. Then
the heat between Tbilisi and Yerevan reached such a degree that some
time later, visiting Yerevan, Saakashvili was forced to move away from
such vague comments on Nagorno-Karabakh about compulsory "non-violent
solutions to the problem of justice," surprising Baku. The only
thing to save him from a new scandal was the wise remark of a senior
Azerbaijani official: "the gentleman answered the way he was asked -
it is necessary to take the context into account."
It certainly was not the only case where the expressive Georgian leader
put himself and Georgia in an awkward position. Just remember the hasty
congratulations to Yulia Tymoshenko on victory in the presidential
elections in Ukraine, when in fact Yanukovych was the one to win! Or
declaring Alexander Lukashenko to be a dictator ... in response to
the Belorussian president's decision not to recognize the sovereignty
of Belarus in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - it turned out that Tbilisi
misunderstood the official assessment of Minsk.
Georgia's new authorities are trying to manoeuvre, to avoid sharp
corners. They proclaimed the continuation of the foreign policy
vector to the West, but try not to "dance and chant" on this aspect
too much, in order not to tease Russia. Especially taking into account
that the date of entry into the EU and NATO is not so close, even if
it is marked in someone's calendar. Such caution is understandable,
but also naive. It is naive if Tbilisi seriously believes that Russia,
evaluating their restraint, will change its position on the painful
for Georgia issues of territorial integrity. Firstly, such a price
offered by the new authorities is much too low, and secondly, they seem
to repeat the mistake of their predecessors, transforming conflicts
with Sukhumi and Tskhinvali into a conflict with Moscow. In words,
they refused this, but in fact it is not visible.
Such caution is manifested today in the Ukrainian question, as well.
It is easy to imagine Tbilisi's attitude to the processes in the
Maidan if Saakashvili remained in power. He himself so many times
spoke in Kiev in support of the Maidan, that his reasonable countrymen
encouraged him to know when to stop "bothering the Ukrainians." And
the new authorities are in a quandary again. Not to support the
"revolutionaries of Kiev" (when some time ago, Georgia's policy had
an element of support from the Ukraine against Russia, when Kiev made
repeated proposals to send Ukrainian peacekeepers to conflict zones)
would be quite impolite. To express solidarity with the Maidan,
to welcome the change of power, while Moscow is everything but
happy about the Ukrainian processes, means to "perplex" Russia -
and no relationship recovery can be dreamed in Georgia. And now the
Deputy Prime Minister, Kakha Kaladze, has made a statement in which
he tried to explain that Yanukovych's resignation is only supported in
Georgia by ex-President Saakashvili and former representatives of the
authorities, making themselves known thanks to the events in Ukraine.
Okay, let's assume it's true. But what is the position of the current
Tbilisi authorities?
So far, the Foreign Ministry of Georgia has only expressed concern
about the violence in its official statement. As an anonymous former
Western diplomat dealing with the problems of the South Caucasus told
Vestnik Kavkaza, "Tbilisi thinks that they are building a multi-vector
policy. But this is not the way to do it - not with so much uncertainty
on many key issues." A multi-vector, or complementarity policy was
typical for Armenia, where the president of Georgia is now on a two-day
visit. However, under severe pressure from various sides, such a policy
is rarely viable. Especially in more or less the long term. The same
complementary policy of Yerevan in recent years narrowed like shagreen
leather and today has become largely focused only on Moscow.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/52016.html
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 28 2014
28 February 2014 - 2:44pm
Victoria Panfilova "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" exclusively for Vestnik
Kavkaza
Yesterday, the president of Georgia began his two-day visit to
Armenia. The visit was to be expected, as Georgi Margvelashvili has
already visited other neighboring countries. In Yerevan, the Georgian
delegation was received at the highest level. During the two days,
the messengers from Georgia met with the Armenian President, the
Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister, members of the government,
and finally, with the Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II.
With all the warmth and hospitality that guests are surrounded with in
the Caucasus, the Georgian delegation always have difficult moments in
neighboring countries. Namely, when it comes to territorial integrity.
Baku wants the guests to consider Nagorno-Karabakh part of their
country that has been just temporarily torn away. Here it is much
easier to respond for the representatives of Georgia, who are
experiencing the same problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
than in Yerevan, where they hear the usual question from some media
representatives about their attitude to Nagorno-Karabakh. Declaring
that it is part of Azerbaijan is equivalent to insulting the host
country. To support the Armenian stance means to condemn Georgia not
only to problems with Azerbaijan, but dig themselves a deeper hole
for the negotiations in Geneva on Abkhazia and South Ossetia issues.
Naturally, supporters of independence of the former Georgian autonomies
will put the question bluntly in the negotiations: Dear Georgians,
recently in Yerevan you talked about Karabakh as an independent state,
and on what basis are you denying independence to partially-recognized
Abkhazia and South Ossetia?
Therefore, Georgian delegations visiting neighbors have to be extremely
careful and scrupulous in their choice of definitions. The previous
authorities, by the way, were not exactly subtle. For example, one of
Mikheil Saakashvili's visits to Azerbaijan turned into a real scandal
with Armenia. Going into a rage, the Georgian leader said that Tbilisi
and Baku should join forces and stifle the separatist sentiments in
the region, be it Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia or South Ossetia. And it
was said in a context that implied not only diplomatic efforts. Then
the heat between Tbilisi and Yerevan reached such a degree that some
time later, visiting Yerevan, Saakashvili was forced to move away from
such vague comments on Nagorno-Karabakh about compulsory "non-violent
solutions to the problem of justice," surprising Baku. The only
thing to save him from a new scandal was the wise remark of a senior
Azerbaijani official: "the gentleman answered the way he was asked -
it is necessary to take the context into account."
It certainly was not the only case where the expressive Georgian leader
put himself and Georgia in an awkward position. Just remember the hasty
congratulations to Yulia Tymoshenko on victory in the presidential
elections in Ukraine, when in fact Yanukovych was the one to win! Or
declaring Alexander Lukashenko to be a dictator ... in response to
the Belorussian president's decision not to recognize the sovereignty
of Belarus in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - it turned out that Tbilisi
misunderstood the official assessment of Minsk.
Georgia's new authorities are trying to manoeuvre, to avoid sharp
corners. They proclaimed the continuation of the foreign policy
vector to the West, but try not to "dance and chant" on this aspect
too much, in order not to tease Russia. Especially taking into account
that the date of entry into the EU and NATO is not so close, even if
it is marked in someone's calendar. Such caution is understandable,
but also naive. It is naive if Tbilisi seriously believes that Russia,
evaluating their restraint, will change its position on the painful
for Georgia issues of territorial integrity. Firstly, such a price
offered by the new authorities is much too low, and secondly, they seem
to repeat the mistake of their predecessors, transforming conflicts
with Sukhumi and Tskhinvali into a conflict with Moscow. In words,
they refused this, but in fact it is not visible.
Such caution is manifested today in the Ukrainian question, as well.
It is easy to imagine Tbilisi's attitude to the processes in the
Maidan if Saakashvili remained in power. He himself so many times
spoke in Kiev in support of the Maidan, that his reasonable countrymen
encouraged him to know when to stop "bothering the Ukrainians." And
the new authorities are in a quandary again. Not to support the
"revolutionaries of Kiev" (when some time ago, Georgia's policy had
an element of support from the Ukraine against Russia, when Kiev made
repeated proposals to send Ukrainian peacekeepers to conflict zones)
would be quite impolite. To express solidarity with the Maidan,
to welcome the change of power, while Moscow is everything but
happy about the Ukrainian processes, means to "perplex" Russia -
and no relationship recovery can be dreamed in Georgia. And now the
Deputy Prime Minister, Kakha Kaladze, has made a statement in which
he tried to explain that Yanukovych's resignation is only supported in
Georgia by ex-President Saakashvili and former representatives of the
authorities, making themselves known thanks to the events in Ukraine.
Okay, let's assume it's true. But what is the position of the current
Tbilisi authorities?
So far, the Foreign Ministry of Georgia has only expressed concern
about the violence in its official statement. As an anonymous former
Western diplomat dealing with the problems of the South Caucasus told
Vestnik Kavkaza, "Tbilisi thinks that they are building a multi-vector
policy. But this is not the way to do it - not with so much uncertainty
on many key issues." A multi-vector, or complementarity policy was
typical for Armenia, where the president of Georgia is now on a two-day
visit. However, under severe pressure from various sides, such a policy
is rarely viable. Especially in more or less the long term. The same
complementary policy of Yerevan in recent years narrowed like shagreen
leather and today has become largely focused only on Moscow.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/52016.html